JS Unitrade Merchandise v. Samson
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Ruperto Samson, Jr. was hired by petitioner JS Unitrade Merchandise, Inc. as Key Account Manager and subsequently promoted to Senior Key Account Manager and then Associate Area Sales Manager for South Luzon, receiving commendations for his performance. However, in mid-2007, his performance was allegedly criticized, and he was offered a demotion or separation. He was reassigned to office work with clerical duties, which he perceived as harassment. He stopped reporting for work and filed a complaint for constructive dismissal, alleging he was illegally eased out of his employment. Procedural History: Samson filed a complaint for constructive dismissal, backwages, and other monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter found that while the transfer to office work was not constructive dismissal, the penalty of dismissal was too harsh, ordering suspension from September 18 to December 31, 2007, and awarding backwages and separation pay. Both parties appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, finding that Samson was validly transferred, did not suffer constructive dismissal, and had abandoned his employment. Samson then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision regarding separation pay but deleted the award of backwages, holding that there was no constructive dismissal nor abandonment, and that both parties should bear the consequences of their actions. The Petition: JS Unitrade Merchandise, Inc. filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision affirming the Labor Arbiter's award of separation pay and its finding that Samson did not abandon his employment. Petitioner argues that since there was no dismissal, Samson should not have been awarded separation pay, and that there was substantial evidence of abandonment. Respondent Samson, in his comment, essentially reiterates his arguments that he was constructively dismissed and did not abandon his employment.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in finding that respondent did not abandon his employment. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Labor Arbiter's award of separation pay to the respondent.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated October 26, 2011 and Resolution dated January 27, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 114436 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of abandonment of employment: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that respondent Ruperto Samson, Jr. did not abandon his employment. Abandonment requires a clear and deliberate intent to sever the employer-employee relationship, manifested by overt acts, in addition to failure to report for work without valid reason. The Court emphasized that employees who take steps to protest their dismissal cannot logically be said to have abandoned their work, as the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is proof of their desire to return to work, thus negating abandonment. In this case, Samson's insistence that he was constructively dismissed, coupled with his immediate filing of a complaint after ceasing to report for work, negated the charge of abandonment. The Court reiterated that abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot be presumed from equivocal acts, requiring clear proof of deliberate and unjustified intent to sever the relationship. On the issue of separation pay: The Court affirmed the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. It noted that the issue of constructive dismissal had been settled by the Court of Appeals, which found no constructive dismissal. However, since reinstatement was no longer feasible due to the strained relations between the parties, as aptly observed by the Labor Arbiter, an award of separation pay was justified. The Court cited jurisprudence stating that reinstatement is not feasible when the employer-employee relationship has been strained to the point of rendering reinstatement impossible, or when a considerable time has lapsed between the dismissal and the resolution of the case. The Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals were correct in awarding separation pay because of the strained relations between petitioner and respondent.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal immediately after ceasing to report for work negates any charge of abandonment, as it demonstrates the employee's intent to return to work. However, if reinstatement is no longer feasible due to strained relations, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is justified.